Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jellycat

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jellycat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional Content, issue in WP:GNG. Endrabcwizart (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Toys, Companies, and United Kingdom. ––FormalDude (talk) 17:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to easily meet SIRS criteria even at a glance, with genuine feature level coverage in the Times, Evening Standard, and Wall Street Journal. Not seeing the argument here for deletion. Or specifically why the mildly promotional tone warrants a deletion discussion rather than the obvious solution of editing to NPOV, putting a flag on it, or similar. WilsonP NYC (talk) 02:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep clearly notable per the refs in the article. Cleanup ≠ deletion.

—A. B. ^{(talk • contribs • global count)} 02:11, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: passes WP:ORGCRIT. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep several reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. ResonantDis_tortion 05:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.